A Foolish War - Part Three: A Backpage Literary American Fascist

Steve Chapman, a columnist for Creators Syndicate, is the embodiment
of an American Fascist, the sort I've written about in my continuing
series called American Fascism (check back issues of TLE).
Smiling out from the black and white pages of the Charleston Post
and Courier, Steve Chapman in his latest article entitled
Civil Liberties Must Not Override American Security argues,
"protecting the rights and freedoms of the American people is amongst
the highest functions of our government. But sometimes that duty has
to take a back seat to protecting the lives and safety of the
American people." Odd that Mr. Chapman would argue this since it is
the actions of the American government and not the American people
that has brought the events of September 11th to this shore. It is
the continued acts of the American government and not the American
people that has brought on these attacks, yet it is the American
people, suggested by Mr. Chapman, that must suffer the loss of
personal freedom and liberty while the American governments freedom
to act goes unchallenged - and in Mr. Chapman's case, whole heartedly
supported. Mr. Chapman blatantly disregards the Bill of Rights,
giving more ammunition to Neil's claim in Save America - Enforce
the Bill of Rights that actual enforcement of the Bill of Rights
would guard against the tyranny that Mr. Chapman. [sic -- ed.] This article by Mr.
Chapman not only frames but helps to define the rising American
Fascist, it also points out relative ease at which these tyrants in
patriots clothing will ignore and violate the Constitution and Bill
of Rights that allows the American Fascist to threaten individual
liberty while goose-stepping in line for the freedom of the
government.

Mr. Chapman writes, "In trying to preserve civil liberties, we may
allow terrorists to succeed in killing innocent people." The question
posed to Mr. Chapman then is this, what and whom are the terrorists
attacking? Despite massive propaganda attempting to paint this
laughable and foolish war as a war for freedom, it is simply a war to
allow the American government to continue operating in the way it
wishes wherever it wishes. It is a war for the freedom of the
American government, not for the American people. The reason the
terrorists have chosen to attack the United States is because of the
actions of the government and not the actions of the American people.
Instead of allowing the American people to protect themselves by
enforcing the 2nd Amendment, Mr. Chapman would disarm them of their
rights and liberties and invest in the American government a far
greater involvement in individual protection and liberty in this Big
Brother knows best land. Mr. Chapman obviously believes that Section
8, Claus 18 "Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof," is more
important than the Bill of Rights. Brutus, writing in Anti-Federalist
#6 shows how the government would use the clause to increase its
power and sway over freedom and liberty stating, "the government
would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to
promote the public good, and there being no judge between them and
the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always judge for
themselves."

Later in the article Mr. Chapman refers to the freedom given to the
government by the Constitution to suspend parts of the Constitution
in time of war (Mr. Chapman conveniently forgetting that there has
not been a formal declaration of war, just the putrescent words
flowing from the mouth of the King-General Shrub) - these freedoms
given to the government, argues L. Neil Smith in his article
Save America - Enforce
the Bill of Rights do not exist within the
Constitution. King Abraham Lincoln's imprisoning of rebel
sympathizers without a trial is one example of this greater freedom
given to the government during wartime cited by Mr. Chapman. These
were rebel sympathizers, the crime they committed was to not go along
with the government dictates. I am forced to wonder how much longer
it will be until freedom and liberty sympathizers are thrown in jail
for their inconvenient support of the Bill of Rights. Mr. Chapman
also goes on to mention the freedom of the government to suspend the
Third Amendment and to apply a different interpretation of the
Fourth. In his citing of the Fourth Amendment Mr. Chapman writes,
"The Fourth Amendment bans "unreasonable searches", but the term does
not have an immutable meaning. What seemed unreasonable Sept. 10 may
look reasonable now." Mr. Chapman uses that same logic that King
Abraham Lincoln did before him, that the preservation of the
government and the freedom of the government to act was paramount
above the freedoms and liberties of its citizens - or in this case,
its vassals.

Finally, Mr. Chapman concludes his argument writing his
interpretation of the intent of the framers of the Constitution,
"that in an emergency, the survival of the government and the safety
of the citizenry may have to override ordinary liberties." Question
then, what are ordinary liberties? There are no ordinary liberties
Mr. Chapman, all liberties are extra-ordinary and they are bestowing
upon individuals not by government by but a higher power - government
is merely installed amongst men to protect those rights, not deny
them. These are the natural rights of man and no attack on the
government should give that same government the right to deny them.
Mr. Chapman may wish to go take a look at the Declaration of
Independence and read the words written there. That all men are
created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain
inalienable rights - not their government but their creator whomever
that may be.
The arguments that Mr. Chapman makes are valid in that they take
advantage of the interpretability of the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights. The laws contained within the Bill of Rights are laws that
the government is required to live and abide by. But this government,
and the governments that have come before it, do not, and does not.
It flaunts, ignores, or arbitrarily applies these laws, these
restrictions, when it serves the governments need. This arbitrary
application of the laws contained within the Bill of Rights can be
nothing short of tyranny. Trenchard and Gordon, in one of their Cato
essays writes of arbitrary application of law by a tyrant thusly, "
(the tyrant) though he may sometimes punish crimes, perhaps more out
of rage than of justice, will be more likely to persecute and oppress
innocence, and to destroy thousands cruelly, for one that he protects
justly." This country's tyrants are many headed, their will is not
the will one the one but the will of the collective. By totally
disregarding the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as Mr. Chapman
suggests, the tyrant merely gets to exercise his whim and will more
easily.

This putrid interpretive dance that the government does allows these
tyrants in patriots clothing, these American Fascists. In summation
Mr. Chapman writes, "Given sufficient care, the heightened demands of
security can be balanced with the need to prevent injustices against
innocent people." To which I respond, "He who will give up liberty
and freedom for security deserves the blessings of neither." And I
further ad, "He who would give up individual liberty and freedom in
exchange for the freedom of the government to act is an American
Fascist." I leave you with a quote from Aristocrotis wrote in
Anti-Federalist #51, "Happy thy servants! Happy thy vassals! And
happy thy slaves, which fit under the shade of thy omnipotent
authority and behold the majesty! For such a state who would not part
with the idea blessings of liberty? Who would not cheerfully resign
the nominal advantages of freedom?" By ignoring or suggesting that
inconvenient parts of the Bill of Rights can be suspended, the
vassals of America have parted with the blessings of liberty and
advantages of freedom.

Bio: Keith graduated from the College of Charleston with a degree in
History - any more information would just provide the government with
additional methods of profiling me. Individuals and leaders see each
other as 'liabilities.' Freedom favors the former, and tyranny favors
the latter (Thanks to "E.J. Totty" for that).

Previous
to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 150, December 3, 2001.